You're thinking rather small, aren't you? Why not aim a bit higher?
This all should be turned into an article, put on the front page and get a tweet, hopefully lots of retweets, for the world to hear, all (present and future) developers included - not just Larian.
Replayability is a meta feature that is intrinsic to CRPGs due to their very nature, compared to other game genres. You can pick different classes or develop your character differently, pick different story paths, etc. Thus, much of that is already baked into the NtH list in one way or another. One single "there's replayability" wouldn't do IMO, since CRPGs always offer replayability to some degree.
Randomized levels or dungeons do increase replayability since they are, objectively speaking, good for subsequent exploration — can't explore if you know where everything is, after all. The same goes for randomized items, or anything else that can be randomized. Of course, as with everything too much of it can have negative side effects.
That said, if we added a section to only list elements that are good for replayability, it could easily lead to a bottomless well, since we could basically add everything that has to do with randomization, choice, consequence and so on. I suggest we simply use a…
new tag: Replayability (low, medium, high).
Automapping is a UI convenience feature that I wouldn't want to miss, personally. With too much convenience, however, we'll arrive at quest compasses and enter BtH territory, so a neutral list might indeed be the way to go …
Nice to have doesn't necessarily mean fun to have. If we went that route, we'd have to redefine lots of elements that some players may like and other may not like. But IMHO it shouldn't be about how "fun" an element is, since that is completely subjective, but about how it can improve the different categories.
A limited inventory greatly improves Exploration: you need to choose what to keep (choice), it makes sense that you can't carry everything (immersion), there's inventory management (interactivity) and maybe even a bit of indirect impact on character development (interdependence).
That said, there seems to be a mix of "no fun" elements and "bad to have" (read: detriment to exploration, story or character development) in our BtH list: while auto-leveling decreases character development by definition and has no redeeming qualities, "grinding" is a more judgmental term.
In light of what I said above, I think this would be misleading. Either an element is good for a CRPG as such or it isn't. This discrepancy could be solved with a new list though: "Fun to Have / Not Fun to Have", which can be used for elements that are mostly judgmental.
For me the (NtH) and (BtH) elements are just optional elements for CRPGs.
We could declare them all as (opt).
(NtH) and (BtH) is somewhat subjective, but more fun to read
We often declared elements that allow more freedom as (NtH), maybe there are players out there, that prefer a strong linear story ?
So please don't overstate Nice and Bad.
In general:
(NtH) = increase the CRPG experience
(BtH) = decrease the CRPG experience
(neutral) = optional element that doesn't interfere with CRPGness
Minigames, Fast traveling, Automapping would be good examples for (neutral).
-> These are general game features that have nothing to to with role playing.
Indeed. I think we have that covered: Free-roaming CRPGs would score quite well in "Choice" for story, whereas games with a strong, linear story would probably score better in "Immersion." I think that's beautiful, as it allows players to, well, pick and choose.
A game that got full scores in all areas would most likely be way too complex.
First a remark:
C2) (MH) you can develop your party (stats and/or skills,…) by questing
=> What's the definition of questing?
I feel there's two elements hidden in one point:
- you can develop your party (stats and/or skills,…) : That is related to character development.
- There's quests: That isn't related to character development.
This v0.5 definition is in my opinion influenced by the evolution of CRPG.
There is nothing about world interaction in the MH elements, a frequent huge weakness in modern CRPG:
- Puzzles, riddles, collect and interpret informations, and more.
- Traps, mechanisms, levers, buttons, more.
- Secrets area, find your path to a location, hints, and more
- Items interaction, between items and between structures, that includes crafting, usages, breaking, and more.
There is nothing in MH about survival, another huge weakness in modern CRPG:
- Manage backpack and carry capacity.
- Manage cure wound and disease, resurrect and find, buy or craft stuff to do it.
- Manage eat and drink and find, buy or craft it.
- Manage fatigue, sleep, restore.
- Manage other resources, ammo, base ingredients for a "magic" system ie magic ammo and magic crafting, repair stuff and manage attrition, more.
There is nothing in MH about general world simulation. That point is much less a weakness in modern CRP but it's a weakness in that definition proposal:
- Economy system and shops.
- NPC/Monsters/Animals living and activities.
- Towns and social locations like bar, marketplace, police/guard places, more.
- Places evolutions (like a town ok then mildly destroyed, forest clean then burned, and more).
- Weather and time schedule.
- Lore development, books, stories told, story tellers, items with stories, history, legends, more.
And from far the most chocking, there's nothing in MH about the pets:
- Tame pets,
- Teach stuff to pets.
- Buy pets
- Train pets and level up pets
- Equip pets
- Control pets (or lost control)
- Take care of pets
- And many more pets stuff.
The importance given to story+NPC+quests is quite clearly an influence of current CRPG evolution. For example I think that Legend of Grimrock doesn't qualify to the tag CRPG according to this definition and for me it's ridiculous.
The reason is in my opinion that this definition is too much linked to recent evolution of CRPG and to what's currently in the hype. At least that's clearly not the final definition of CRPG and for me Legend of Grimrock is the (recent) proof.
EDIT: I apologize to have destroyed and burned to hashes a long thread in just one post. But before to instantly hate me and blindly react, think seven time before to fail into some instinctive social relationships reactions to defend your friends.
HiddenX, you might want to keep the OP updated at least with links to the latest versions. Do you have a v0.91 yet?
@Ihaterpg: Thanks for you contribution! Don't worry, everything is fine. v0.5 is indeed quite outdated. You did mention stuff we hadn't considered yet and which can probably be integrated into the NtH list (see "Optional List" link in HiddenX' post above).
Things to think about:
- realism features
- pets -- they might share a lot of features with NPCs / party members
- more world simulation stuff
Don't have the time right now, but I'll get back to those.
The latest (NtH)-list is really good: Many elements, nice sublists, very informative.
I have my problems with the smaller lists: (Fun to have), (Not Fun To Have)
-> too many lists with too little info.
My new proposal:
Keep the (NtH) & (BtH)-lists for CRPG-Information
We replace the Fun to have/No Fun to to have-lists with a questionnaire for general game info with predefined answers to select. This way we are much more flexible:
Are Easter Eggs in the game ? (yes,no)
Are Minigames in the game ? (yes, no)
How good is the AI implemented ? (good, medium, bad)
How is the combat difficulty ? (easy, normal, hard)
How much fighting is in the game ? (less, balanced, much)
How much looting is in the game ? (less, balanced, much)
Can the difficulty be adjusted ? (yes, no)
Is automapping available ? (yes, no)
Is fast traveling available ? (yes, no)
Grinding: Is filler combat necessary to develop your character ? (yes, no)
Realism: How much realism is implemented in the game ? (less, balanced, much)
Are useless skills in the game ? (yes, no)
How would you rate the progression in the game ? (fast, balanced, slow)
Does the story follow some clichéd paths ? (yes, no)
How is the linearity of the game? (linear, non-linear, network-like)
How would you rate the suspense of the game? (boring, gripping, fun,…)
How much reloading is neccessary to beat the game? (no, less, much)
How would you rate the game interface? (intuitive, clunky)
How much is the gameplay interrupted with loading? (no, less, much)
So the reviewer has to do the rating - we can concentrate on objective questions.
More than yes/no answers options are possible.
And we avoid to preselect something into fun / not fun.
I feel more comfortable with that proposal for the reasons explained.
The ultimate acid test would be, where the purporter (reviewer/developer etc') stretches or manipulates the CRPG definition in a way to suit their own insistence that a game is a CRPG when it in not. The definition deals with this aspect nicely by requesting they further explain to deem that it is a CPRG by using the sub lists for guidance, the onus would be on themselves to morally oblige the clarification.
While we are at it, may I throw in the room the notion that we try and dissolve the Bad-to-Have list as well? I reason that most of those few are already — or can be — indirectly baked into the NtH list:
- if there's auto-leveling of sorts, Character-Development (choice) should get a noticeable hit
- quest markers or compass should reduce the amount of fulfilled exploration points
- hand-holding is against our SH's that demand "thought" — and it's quite subjective to begin with (reviewer's job)
- pre-selected options generally reduce the number of Choice points
If we still want to actually name some of them, "general game info" seems like good enough place.
(Character Development) Auto-Leveling
(Exploration) Quest Markers
(Exploration) Quest Compass
(Exploration) Hand Holding
(Exploration) Loot overload: there's tons of loot(unrealistic)
(Story) Pre-selected options: no choice
transfers to:
(Character Development)
(NtH) If Auto-Leveling exist it should be optional (for CRPG beginners only) and can be disabled
(Exploration)
(NtH) If handholding options like Quest Markers and Quests Compass exist they should be optional (for CRPG beginners only) and can be disabled
(NtH) Loot comes in realistic amounts
(Story)
(NtH) There are no pre-selected options in the game
***
Games with these (NtH) elements get more points.
***
Then we have these tools for game categorizing, inspecting and rating:
CRPG Definition checklist Nice to Have (NtH) checklist Tag list
General game info questionnaire
Mmmm 0.9 adds SH, really complicated. NtH and MH, and now SH is all the problem of this attempt of definition and the source of disagreement about CRPG tag. In my opinion it's pointless to try restrict CRPG tag definition which is an older tag than some members of this forum.
There's the temptation to add more MH (or SH?) to define more precisely the tag. The reasons to do it are mainly personal preferences and an attempt to restrict a tag definition to what you think you would like to play. I suspect another reason is sometimes an "anti" reaction, an attempt to exclude to the tag something you think you don't like. But any restriction will fail when confronted to the real history of this tag. Sorry but you won't change that CRPG are also, Wizardry, Dungeon Master, Legend of Grimrock, Diablo like, Gothic series, The Witcher series.
At reverse that tag definition accept as CRPG some games not many people will put in the genre, it happens because some CRPG designs has spread through general game design.
The problem in my opinion is to reuse a tag that didn't waited you to be used. I read in the wishlist thread that someone listed qualities that someone else pinpointed as making the CRPG a simulation. But in my opinion the weak and vague definition of CRPG is its strength. It can includes a puppet game like Oblivion. It can includes a simulation RPG as is… I'd be curious to have the list (I could think only of some that are far to be well achieved). It can includes a Diablo like game. It can includes a "Dungeon Crawler" like Dungeon Master or Legend of Grimrock, it can includes a RPG shooter like E.Y.E.: Divine Cybermancy or Borderlands… 2. It can includes a Tactical RPG as King's Bounty: The Legend. And many more. That is CRPG, not a strict definition matching your preferences and current evolutions of games using the tag.
Tags are just words and words signification evolves along time. In Music history it's quite huge. But in my opinion it's the wrong way to try define more strict limits to a tag definition and ignore what it included along the history.
Invent a new tag, for the forum members, something that is clearly new and gives an idea of the meaning. It's a bad tag name, but it's what I use sometimes in some post, Full Fledged CRPG. Or at reverse instead of removing the historical definition of CRPG, use a base very large including everything and anything that qualify, as it should be, and spread the sub genres along the characteristics.
There's an interesting dual movement, everybody has a bit of both but at different degree and balances, it's be curious about "new" vs want something just "very good". Designers with the more creativity and certainly those with more ambition will always tend try something new. Try make something new and risk fail is better for those type of personality than try make something known and make it very well. In music, literacy, movies, and also games, some consumers are also curious and appreciate "new" more or as much than "very good". It's less spread in video games but that exists, at least me.
The Witcher or Gothic series wouldn't have been done if they have checked first the current 0.9 tag definition and tried match its definition to match tastes of forums members. The larger is the tag definition the more open space it let to designers and that isn't bad. It becomes bad when it's a failure or when it's made for wrong reasons, or when it's hyped by reviewers because "new" is much easier to review. But failures, wrong reasons and bad reviewers approach aren't good justifications to close doors.
I was always irritated to read new definitions of New Wave, strictly applied to a limited period of time where the tags was hugely popular, mainstream and generated plenty clones matching some clichés. And recently at my surprise I discovered a rewriting in the wiki, instead of trying to debate which strict definition was the right, just explains the various usage of the tag along the time. It forgets few important elements as the importance of the first two albums of Roxy Music, but it's a rather excellent approach because it is open and don't try lie and rewrite history.
About history rewrite everybody have heard of the official photographies edited to remove some character, but I did notice The Witcher 2 fun history rewriting through the Enhanced Edition. The game starts by apologizing about a beginning setup to learn play, as a sort of tutorial (they added one separated tutorial to the game beginning, in my opinion the way to go because too many tutorials generated a crap beginning in CRPG that attempted mix tutorial and beginning of the game). Lol, what a fun history rewriting, that long linear movie like introduction was also a way to show "hey we can make great game movie" a clear element showing the huge influence and admiration for Bioware, probably a mutual influence/admiration. But Bioware has been thrown into Hell since and they had to rewrite the history of The Witcher 2.
1. CRPGs are games that fulfill all MHs. All those games you mentioned probably are CRPGs in some way. It's a fairly loose definition.
2. If a game fails one or more SHs, it's still a CRPG of sorts and at least related or borderline. It may require tags to more accurately describe it to gamers. If it fulfills all SHs, it probably is a "full-fledged CRPG" as you call it.
3. NtHs are purely optional and don't say anything about the classification, but can help providing a bigger picture.
4. Tags are a) purely informational and b) not fixed. Tags aren't necessarily narrow definitions, but they do provide info about a game. Developers can easily come up with some new games that can't really be classified — and if those have established themselves we can simply add a new tag. That's how genres come to be: work of art first, classification later — not the other way around.
If I understand you correctly, you want games that fulfill all MHs and SHs be called "full fledged CRPG" and games that fulfill all MHs but not all SHs be called CRPG.
We could do that, but then it would be against the common usage of the term. We normally use the term CRPG as "full fledged CRPG" and give sub-genre names to deviating games. When Diablo came out there was much ado about people calling it "CRPG" — the dust only settled once people realized they could simply call it an "Action-RPG". Besides, Action-RPGs are RPGs, too.
Arthu: The current tag definition doesn't match your explanation. Ok for The Witcher of Gothic CRPG anyway, but you don't answer about Wizardry, Dungeon Master or Legend of Grimrock.
About The Witcher (1) and Gothic (2+NOTR) they are for me quite more Full Fledged CRPG than are many matching all SH. And no way they are borderline.
So I think MH are already too restrictive for a CRPG tag. And SH are a lot too restrictive.
Diablo is a very special case because the dev was very proud to create a new type of game, at least it's what they believed and more or less the history followed that road by creating the Diablo like genre. But it happened only with Diablo 2 I don't think I have read that for Diablo 1. Historically that sub genre is still clearly CRPG as much than Wizardy has always been CRPG.
